Assuming this employee is in Ontario, I would treat the doctor’s four-month WFH recommendation as the start of the accommodation process, not necessarily the final answer. You should generally accept the medical need in good faith, but you are entitled to obtain enough functional information to understand why WFH is required, whether other accommodations could meet the same restrictions, and how the employee can continue performing the essential duties of the role. The OHRC specifically says employers should focus on functional limitations and accommodation needs rather than diagnosis, symptoms or treatment details.

A traditional FAF may be broader than necessary if the real issue is appointments, scheduling flexibility, or the ability to work remotely. Instead, I would send a short, targeted accommodation questionnaire for the physician. For example, ask whether the employee has disability-related restrictions affecting their ability to attend the workplace; whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether hybrid work, flexible start/end times, intermittent time away for appointments, modified hours, or another arrangement would satisfy the restrictions; the expected duration; whether there are restrictions on travel or commuting; and whether the employee can perform the essential duties of their position while accommodated. You should not ask for the diagnosis unless there is an unusual and demonstrable reason that the accommodation cannot otherwise be assessed. The OHRC expressly supports targeted questions of this type where an employer needs to distinguish between options such as working from home, flexible hours, job modification or leave.

I would also meet with the employee before deciding. Explain that you are not challenging their physician’s medical opinion; you are trying to identify the accommodation that appropriately addresses their functional needs. Ask what barriers they experience with on-site work, what flexibility is needed around appointments, and whether there are alternatives that would work for them. Be particularly careful not to say, “We don’t think you need to work from home.” The employer can explore reasonable alternatives, but should not simply substitute its own assessment for medical evidence.

For fairness, I recommend using a consistent accommodation process rather than focusing on whether other employees are allowed to work from home. Accommodation is individualized, so two employees can legitimately receive different arrangements.
Your process should include:
documenting the request,
medical information received,
questions asked,
options considered and
final decision;
using the same functional-information standard for comparable accommodation requests;
restricting medical information to HR or others who genuinely need it and keeping it separate from the employee’s ordinary personnel records;
telling the manager only what they need to implement the accommodation, such as “WFH approved until January 15” or “flexible scheduling permitted for medical appointments,” rather than providing medical details;
establishing performance, availability, communication and attendance expectations that remain applicable during the accommodation;
setting a review date before the four months expire rather than allowing the arrangement to simply continue indefinitely; and
paying reasonable costs associated with medical information that you specifically require for the accommodation process.

In your situation, I would temporarily implement the WFH arrangement while you obtain clarification, unless there is a genuine operational or safety reason that makes that impossible. Then assess whether four months of full WFH is the appropriate accommodation or whether, for example, flexible hours plus appointment time, a hybrid arrangement, or another measure fully addresses the medical restrictions. The legal obligation is to provide an effective accommodation to the point of undue hardship; the employee does not necessarily have an absolute right to their preferred accommodation, but the employer must actively investigate appropriate options rather than simply rejecting the physician’s recommendation. You should also create an accommodation plan once settled on an arrangement.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

Now knowing that the employee is in Alberta, I would treat the physician’s four-month work-from-home recommendation as the beginning of the accommodation process rather than automatically as the final accommodation. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, the employer has a duty to accommodate disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship. You can request sufficient medical information to understand the employee’s functional limitations, restrictions, expected duration and accommodation needs, but you generally should not require the employee to disclose their diagnosis or unnecessary medical details. Since a traditional FAF may be more focused on appointment attendance and scheduling flexibility, I would consider using a targeted medical abilities/accommodation form instead.

The form could ask whether the employee has restrictions that prevent or limit their ability to attend the workplace, whether they can perform the essential duties of their position while working from home, whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether alternatives such as hybrid work, flexible hours or time away for appointments would address the restrictions, whether there are any commuting-related restrictions, and the expected duration of the restrictions. I would also meet with the employee to understand the barriers they are experiencing and discuss potential options. The fact that their physician recommended WFH does not necessarily mean WFH is the only accommodation the employer must provide; however, the employer should not simply reject the recommendation or substitute its own opinion for the medical information. The accommodation process should be collaborative, with both the employer and employee participating in identifying an effective and reasonable solution.

For consistency and fairness, I recommend documenting the request, medical information received, clarification requested, accommodation options considered and the final decision. Medical information should be kept confidential and separate from the employee’s regular personnel information, with the manager receiving only the information necessary to implement the accommodation. You should also establish clear expectations around duties, availability, communication and performance while the accommodation is in place, and set a review date before the four-month period expires. In this situation, I would generally avoid immediately refusing the WFH request; instead, consider implementing it temporarily while obtaining the necessary functional information and determining whether full-time WFH is required or whether another effective accommodation would meet the employee’s needs. This approach supports the employer’s duty to accommodate while ensuring that the accommodation is appropriate, individualized and regularly reviewed.

The process is similar to Ontario, but I just wanted to point out the main distinctions for your case. Let me know if you have any other questions!

-HRInsider Staff